THAXTON
v.
JACKSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's challenge to a civil contempt order must be pursued in state court, and therefore, the Younger abstention doctrine applies.
Plaintiff filed a petition challenging a civil contempt order, which the magistrate judge recommended be dismissed based on the Younger abstention doc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Younger V. Harris Abstention Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based upon the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 7) and Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. 8). The motion to stay challenges the reasoning in the R&R and, therefore, will be treated as Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff argues that, contrary to the magistrate judge’s decision, the Younger abstention doctrine does not apply here because he not challenging the underlying civil contempt order, but rather he is “contesting [Defendant’s] right to ignore [his] Writ of Habeas Corpus.” See Doc. 8 at 1. Plaintiff does not explain how Defendant ignored his habeas petition, and contrary to the assertion quoted above, both the original (Doc. 1) and amended (Doc. 5) petitions only challenge the legality of the underlying civil contempt order. That challenge must be pursued in the state court system, not the federal courts. See, e.g., Brown v. Coffin, 766 F. App’x 929 (11th Cir. 2019); Pompey v. Broward Cnty., 95 F. 3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, based on the Court’s de novo review of the issues raised in the motion to stay, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), it is ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay (Doc. 8) is treated as his objection to the R&R and the objection is overruled. 2. The R&R (Doc. 7) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 3. This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk shall close the file. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2020.